"the risks deliberately taken by the Habsburg Empire to stave off its decline"

Looking at the US foreign policy we see a lot of risk taking that seems to have little rational basis while ideas about how the US could stay relevant as world power is lacking. This is a threat to world peace.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. says it is inappropriate to call the current trade standoff between China and the US a new “Cold War” – a metaphor he finds “misleading”. Due to the “high” degree of interdependence, a “Cold War” is not realistic. Instead he calls this bilateral relationship a “cooperative rivalry”. But whether Trump and his China hawks are “capable” to make the best of it is another question. The Cold War emerged in the post WW-II era as a result of an arms race between the US and the Soviet Union. The rivalry created a bipolar world, and nuclear weapons became a deterrent rather than a weapon for use in warfare. The theory of mutually assured destruction (MAD) championed the view that a superpower would not use its “first strike” capability to attack, knowing that the other side would automatically defend itself and retaliate. Contrary to the Soviet Union, which had neither trade nor cultural ties with America other than its massive nuclear arsenal pointing at the US, China has “a more limited nuclear force.” Bilateral trade volumes total a half-trillion dollars a year, and “more than 350,000 Chinese students and three million tourists are in the US each year.” Nevertheless Trump sees China’s trade surplus with the US as unacceptable and seeks to bring Beijing to its knees.The author highlights the three “phrases” of bilateral relationship – each lasted around 20 years – since WW-II. The Korean War and the Vietnam War were a source of hostility, yet China and the US forged “limited cooperation against the Soviet Union.” Richard Nixon’s famous visit in 1972 ended decades of wary relations and brought China in from the cold, a process that ultimately enabled Beijing to emerge as a major world power. End of the Cold War ushered in a “third phase of economic engagement.” Under Bill Clinton China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, while the US also “hedged its bets” and strengthened ties with India and Japan. Critics said by letting China into the WTO, the US laid the groundwork for the tensions with Beijing today. China’s growing global economic clout came at the expense of workers in the US.The current “fourth” phase identifies China and Russia as America’s “main adversaries.” Trump and Xi Jinping are said to be responsible for the rising hostility between the US and China. By rejecting Deng Xiaoping’s prudent policy – to “keep a low profile and bide your time,” and by no means should take the lead – Xi has taken active role as “constructor of global peace, a contributor to development of global governance, and a protector of international order.” Trump lashed out at Beijing during his campaign, and could not stomach Xi’s nationalistic “China Dream,” which aims to replace the US as the world’s largest economy in the coming years and be its equal in terms of technology and military power. Apart from accusing China of intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices, the US dismisses Beijing’s territorial claims in the East and South China Seas. But the author does not believe that the US would fall into the Thucydides Trap: When China, a rising challenger threatens to go to war with the US, an established hegemon. He highlights the belligerence between the British Empire and Germany, that led to WW I. But today neither the US nor China pose a security threat to the other. Beijing will not be able to beat the US militarily, nor to drive it out of Asia, because its presence is widely supported by the public across the region. As our world has become interconnected and interdependent, no single world power alone can resolve global problems and face “transnational challenges” alone. China and the US will need each other to cooperate. The author says: “Climate change and rising sea levels obey the laws of physics, not politics. As borders become more porous to everything from illicit drugs to infectious diseases to terrorism, the largest economies will have to cooperate to cope with these threats.” Indeed, physis is “the study of matter, energy, and the interaction between them”, while politics defines the interrelationships between the people, groups, or organizations in a particular area of life especially insofar as they involve power and influence or conflict. It explains why dealing with science is much less complicated than engaging with people, especially those like the ignorant Trump and his feckless acolytes.

Dr. Nye, I reject the notion that World War III is anywhere in our future. Yes, China prospered enormously in terms of foreign trade because of its governments' ability to micro-manage everyone's lives, but the form of trade that we now call "globalism" is flawed because it is not =mutually= beneficial. Yes, it made China more prosperous, but it did so at the expense of the United States. "We Sell For Less, Always,™" but you're paying for what you buy with your unemployment benefits. Something is dreadfully wrong with that picture.

Mr. Trump is, above all else, a businessman, and so he recognizes that "America must be strong, too." We have shut down tens of thousands of American factories and turned them into loft apartments, many of which are vacant. For many essential products, China has become a de-facto "sole source." This is not healthy for any nation, "including China."

Globalism champions deals which pit one party against the other such that one of them grows weaker, and the USA has let itself become very weak indeed. There is no sustainable denouement in this. It is fundamentally not sustainable.

How is the US very weak? Per capita GDP wise, the US is still 5 to 6 times of world average, depending on exchange rate. In contrast, China's per capita GDP is 0.7 to 0.8 of world average.

Are Americans really better people and deserve more? If 5 to 6 times of world average is not good enough, how much more is good enough? And WHY?

To preclude WWIII, globalization is the only way forward. US GDP, as a percentage of world GDP, would continue to decline but ONLY gradually. As world GDP continues to grow, American income would also grow, in absolute term although not in relative term.

From from the US helping China’s global economic integration, including its entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, the US delayed China's application for 12 years and, when it did agree to admit China, imposed conditions so uniquely invidious that the Chinese demonstrated in the streets in protest.

And far from the liberal international order helping China sustain rapid economic growth and reduce poverty dramatically, the liberal international order bombed China and threatened and calumniated China every day.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.